Hollins University Hollins Digital Commons

Ann B. Hopkins Papers Manuscript Collections

12-11-1989

Civil Action No. 84-3040 Defendant's Identification of Expert

United States District for the District of Columbia

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/hopkins-papers

Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons BHi //• IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA t/esj 7, 2

<2, - X "7 O ANN B. HOPKINS, ) ) Plaintiff/ ) Civil Action No. 84-3040 ) (GAG) v. ) ) PRICE WATERHOUSE, ) ) Defendant. ) _)

DEFENDANT'S IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WIT ESSES

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(4) of the Fe eral Rules of

Civil Procedure, and this Court's order of October 3, 1989,

defendant Price Waterhouse hereby submits this identification

of persons that it expects to call as expert witnesses in a

on the issue of remedy.

Price Waterhouse presently expects to call as expert

witnesses M. Neil Redford, Peter F. Meder and Dr. Paul J.

Andrisani.

A. F.xpft ted of M. Neil Redford and Peter F. Me er

Messrs. Redford and Meder are expected to testify that

a person in plaintiff's situation in 1983 would have been able

to obtain, without any extraordinary effort, a senior

management position on an accelerated partnership track with a

major consulting/accounting firm. Messrs. Redford and Meder

ill further opine that Ms. Hopkins' efforts to fin a suitable

position were wholly ina equate under the circumstances. Their l testimony will be based upon their knowle ge of the employment market for partners, senior managers an other executives in the field of management consulting and similar fields, their experience (and evaluation of data) relating to placement of

such individuals in new positions, and their review of

plaintiff's efforts to find a suitable position after Price

Waterhouse's 1983 decision to defer her partnership candidacy.

Mr. Redford presently serves as a principal in Bell

Redford Glenn Inc., a consulting firm that offers advice and

outplacement services to employers and specifically to

individuals who leave such companies and seek other

employment. Mr. Redford has had significant ex erience in

assisting high level anagers and consultants like plaintiff

find employment. This includes many individuals who have left

Price Waterhouse. Mr. Redford, who began his career as an

employment consultant with SpencerStuart Search

Consultants as a Vice President, holds undergraduate and

graduate degrees from the University of Florida. He is the

past President of the Ne York College Recruitment Council and

The anagement Development Forum and currently is a member of

the International Consultants .

Mr. Meder is the founder of the firm of Me er &

Associates, an executive search firm based in Chicago,

Illinois, that assists businesses, including management

consulting firms, attract and hire individuals nationwide.

Mr. Meder began his career in the executive search field in

2 1983 at the search consulting firm °f T e Heidrick Partners an

Egan Rehnder International. He has had significant e perience

in placing persons in high level positions at major consulting

firms an Big Eight accounting firms, including Price

Waterhouse. Mr. Meder holds graduate and undergraduate degrees

from Northwestern University.

The following is a sum ary of the expected expert

testimony of Messrs. Redford and Meder:

he nature of the ob market for senior anag t§ par n rs in the field of management consulting

Generally/ persons in senior management positions at

major management consulting firms in the United States have

been able to move from one firm to another with relative speed

and ease during the period 1983 through 1989. The market

(number of jobs) has been rapidly expanding since the early

1980's and thus the demand for persons with plaintiff's ski11s

and experience has been and continues to be strong.

2. The ordinary and reasonable steps taken by persons se kin senior mana er or partner positions in _the field of manage ent consulting and similar fields

An executive seeking employment usually has three

available alternatives: consulting an executive recruiter,

directly approaching potential employers personally or

answering advertisements.

Ms. Hopkins' deposition testimony as to her efforts to

utilize professional executive recruiters suggests that she did

3 not seriously attempt to obtain employment through that method. See Deposition of Ann Hopkins ("Hopkins Dep.") at 24-32. Most in ivi uals seeking employment in the

Washington, D.C. area send resumes and le ters to at least 50 recruiting firms. Individuals seeking employment in several locations in the United States and/or overseas or inarily send resumes and letters to 200 to 400 recruiting firms. Although she acknowledged that she would have been willing to take a position outside the Washington, D.C. area, J L at 35, Ms.

Hopkins states only that she "spoke with a number of recruiters," i at 24, and that she "sent letters to at least two of them." at 11. Ms. Hopkins was unable to locate

these letters and it is not clear from her eposition testimony

that she even sent a resume to these recruiters. Ses iil* at

27-29.

The placement rate of executives through recruiters

significantly increases as seniority level increases.

Moreover, individuals in highly specialized fields are much

more likely to fin a new position through an executive

recruiting service than in ividuals with more general skills.

Given Ms. Hopkins level of experience an her government

services speciality, she would have made an excellent candidate

for placement through a professional recruiter; however, her

chances for success were greatly reduced by her failure to send

a letter and a resume to more than a few recruiters.

4 Ms. Hopkins1 effor s to seek a position by directly approaching prospective employers or partnerships were similarly eficient. Based upon her deposition testimony, it appears that Ms. Hopkins did not even attempt to pursue a senior manage ent position (on a partnership track) at any of the other Big Eight firms. Moreover, Ms. Hopkins admits that her only effort directed at any Big Eight or major firm involved informal verbal communications with a few former colleagues at a firm at which she had worked previously and which had no government services practice. (This contact was seeking immediate and direct admission as a partner.) It ould be expected that a diligent job-seeker would exploit professional and personal contacts to a much greater degree and would engage in much more substantial and affirmative

communication with prospective employers.

Finally, Messrs. e ford and Meder will testify that

it is an expected and normal step to respond to advertisements

for positions in newspapers or professional publications. It

oes not appear from Ms. Hopkins' eposition testimony or

discovery responses that she took that step.

3. The likelihood that plaintiff would have found suita le employment

Mr. Meder is expected to testify that he frequently

has placed senior managers from Big Eight accounting and

strategic consulting firms in senior positions at other Big

5 Eight firms, or in similar positions. Moreover, both he and

Mr. Redford will testify that it is likely hat plaintiff, with

no more than ordinary dili ence, could have been placed in a

senior management position on an accelerated partnership track,

within three to si months after she left Price Waterhouse.

Indeed, because of the rapidly e panding market and the demand

for plaintiff's specialty, she had a reasonable chance to

obtain a partnership position. Mr. Redford also ill testify

to the many Price Waterhouse senior managers that have left the

firm and quickly received offers for senior positions in other

management consulting firms.

Contrary to plaintiff's assumptions, see Hopkins Dep.,

at 162-65, her age would not have stood as a serious obstacle

to placement in a senior management position si ilar to the one

she held at Price Waterhouse. Her 1984 resume, see PI. E . 11,

was impressive. Neither her age at the time, 39, nor her

present age, would be a hindrance. Moreover, the demand for

senior managers was and is strong. Had she wished to work as

an employee, or to become a partner, in a large management

consulting organization, Ms. Hopkins could have done so.

B. Expected Testimony of Dr. Paul J. Andrisani

Dr. Andrisani will provide e pert testimony concerning

the issues of back pay and front pay. His testimony will be

based upon his knowledge of the labor market and the employment

opportunities available for persons with the type of experience

6 and skills possesse by plaintiff. His testimony will also be based upon his understanding, as a labor econo ist, of the appropriate interest rate, discount rate and inflation rate that ought to be utilized in determining the amount of a y back pay and front pay.

Dr. Andrisani is Associate Dean of the School of

Business and Management at Temple University in Philadel hia,

Pennsylvania. He is also Director of the Center for Labor and

Human Resources Studies and a Professor of Human Resource

Management at Temple University. For the past 19 years. Dr.

Andrisani has specialized in the study of employment issues

relating to minorities, women, older workers, the disabled and veterans. His research has been funded by grants and

from the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Commission for

Employment Policy, the U.S. Administration on Aging, the Social

Science Research Council, the U.S. Department of the Army and

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among others. His

studies have appeared in numerous academic journals and books

and have been presented at national and international meetings

of many professional societies. Dr. Andrisani also has served

as a consultant in nearly 100 employment iscrimination cases

over the past 13 years, testifying in state and fe eral court

for both plaintiffs and defen ants as an expert on labor market

economics and statistics, human resource management, and issues

of liability, damages and mitigation of damages.

7 The following is a summary of Dr. Andrisani's expected expert testimony:

Dr. Andrisani ill testify that the only damage plaintiff may have suffered (assuming that the decision in 1983 to efer plaintiff's candidacy for partnership is found to have violated Title VII) would be the difference between the average

earnings for a partner in the class of 1983 for the period July

1, 1983-June 30, 1984, and what plaintiff earned or could have

earned during that same one-year period through any reasonable

effort to mitigate.

Dr. Andrisani also will testify that plaintiff should

have been able to obtain a partner position simi1ar to the one

she sought at Price Waterhouse (assuming that plaintiff had

resolved the interpersonal relationships problem that she

manifested at Price Waterhouse) and that through reasonable

efforts she should have been able to accomplish this within a

reasonable period of time after her partnership candidacy was

placed on hold by Price Waterhouse. Dr. Andrisani* s testimony

will be based on data concerning the employment market for and

job placements of persons with plaintiff s skills and

experience and data concerning the experiences of other

employees who have left Price Waterhouse (as employees) and

later secured partner positions with other fir s.

On the subject of back pay. Dr. Andrisani will testify

that any interest rate applied to such earnings should be no

higher than money market rates. On the subject of front pay.

8 Dr. An risani will testify as to the appropriate iscount rate and the factors that ought to be taken into account, including but not limited to the return that can be expected on reasonable investments and e pected inflation. Further, any front pay calculation should not necessarily project any future increase in the value of a share in Price Waterhouse.

DATED: December 11, 1989 Respectfully submitted.

Of : (D.C. No. 367456) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER ayne A. Schrader 1050 Connecticut Ave., N. W. Theodore J. Boutrous Suite 900 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER Washington, D.C. 20036 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. (202) 955-8500 Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500

Eldon Olson General Counsel Ulric Sullivan Assistant General Counsel PRICE WATERHOUSE 1251 Avenue of the Americas New Yor , New York 10020 (212) 489-8900

9 CERTIFT ATE O SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing

Defen ant's Identification of Ex ert Witnesses to be serve by hand delivery this 11th day of December 1989, upon Ja es H.

Heller, Esq., Kator, Scott & Heller, 1275 K Street, N. ., Suite

950, Washington, D.C. 20006.

JL Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr, (D.C. Bar NO. 420440) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500